A Florida school district’s policy requiring students to use the bathroom associated with their biological sex doesn’t discriminate against transgender students, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The decision settles a lawsuit brought by Drew Adams, a transgender student who was denied access to boys’ bathrooms as a 16-year-old at Allen D. Nease High School in Ponte Vedra Beach.
The U.S. 11th District Court of Appeals found on Dec. 30, 2022, that the school’s policy, which identifies a student’s sex based on that assigned at birth, doesn’t violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment or federal law barring sex-based discrimination in any school receiving federal funds.
“We are pleased with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Drew Adams case,” St. Johns County School District Superintendent Tim Forson said in a statement. “The court’s opinion was supported by sound legal reasoning and common sense. Under this decision, the district will be able to protect all students’ rights.”
Both Sides See a Simple Question
Adams began the transition in gender identity during the ninth grade and began using the boys’ restroom rather than the girls’ restroom, court documents show. When a student lodged a complaint with school administrators, Adams was told to use either female-designated communal restrooms or one of the single-stall, sex-neutral bathrooms on the campus.
Prior to that time, Adams was described as a high-achieving and happy teenager living as a boy.
“I am a boy, and I know that with every fiber of my being,” Adams said in court testimony.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida agreed.
In his July 2018 decision, Judge Timothy J. Corrigan wrote, “Everyone agrees that boys should use the boys’ restroom at Nease and that girls should use the girls’ restroom. The parties disagree over whether Drew Adams is a boy.
“Adams says he is a boy and has undergone extensive surgery to conform his body to his gender identity; medical science says he is a boy; the State of Florida says so (both Adams’ Florida birth certificate and Florida driver’s license say he is a male); and the Florida High School Athletic Association says so.”
To establish a student’s sex, the district relies on various documents including a birth certificate, which must be supplied on enrollment. The district doesn’t allow subsequent changes to sex designation.
Adams had obtained a new birth certificate in Florida indicating the sex as male.
Corrigan declared that the school district had indeed violated Adams’s rights under the 14th Amendment and Title IX, ordering $1,000 in compensatory damages.
The appellate court matter-of-factly overturned that decision.
“This case involves the unremarkable—and nearly universal—practice of separating school bathrooms based on biological sex,” Judge Barbara Lagoa wrote for the 7–4 majority.
“We hold that it does not—separating school bathrooms based on biological sex passes constitutional muster and comports with Title IX.”
Decision Adds to a Confusing Legal Landscape
While some are pleased with the ruling, it does little to clarify the increasingly complicated legal landscape surrounding the questions school districts face regarding sex and gender.The Adams case is remarkably similar to that of Gavin Grimm, a transgender student who had sued Virginia’s Gloucester County School Board in 2017 after it prevented him from using the boys’ restroom while a high school student. Like Adams, Grimm had claimed that school policy violated his rights under both the 14th Amendment and Title IX.
After Grimm prevailed in U.S. District Court and also the U.S. 4th District Court of Appeals, the school board appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. By doing so, the Supreme Court, while allowing the lower court ruling to stand, avoided setting a binding nationwide precedent on the issue.
Now, the Adams decision creates a conflict in appellate court rulings on the matter.
U.S. District Courts are obliged to follow a precedent set by the Courts of Appeal for their federal district. So federal courts in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, and the District of Columbia must interpret a school’s denial of transgender students in using their preferred bathroom as a violation of the 14th Amendment and Title IX.
Federal courts in the 11th Judicial Circuit, including Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, would be obligated to make the opposite finding.
A 2018 decision by the U.S. 3rd District Court of Appeals further complicates the landscape. In Doe ex rel. Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, the court rejected a claim by four students that the presence of transgender students in sex-segregated spaces violated the constitutional right to bodily privacy of students who present themselves according to their biological sex.
There are 11 U.S. Judicial Districts, each including multiple states.
The Supreme Court generally agrees to hear fewer than 100 of the several thousand appeals it receives each year. According to legal experts, the court may allow appellate courts to hear several cases related to an issue so that legal implications are fully vetted before the matter reaches the high court.
It isn’t yet known whether Adams will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Voting in the majority for the Appellate Court were Judges Barbara Lagoa, Kevin Newsom, Elizabeth Branch, Britt Grant, Robert Luck, Andrew Brasher, and Chief Judge William Pryor. Judges Adalberto Jordan, Charles Wilson, Robin Rosenbaum and Jill Pryor dissented.
